This invention relates to a process for processing natural gas or other methane-rich gas streams to produce a liquefied natural gas (LNG) stream that has a high methane purity and a liquid stream containing predominantly hydrocarbons heavier than methane. The applicants claim the benefits under Title 35, United States Code, Section 119(e) of prior U.S. provisional application Ser. No. 60/296,848 which was filed on Jun. 8, 2001.
Natural gas is typically recovered from wells drilled into underground reservoirs. It usually has a major proportion of methane, i.e., methane comprises at least 50 mole percent of the gas. Depending on the particular underground reservoir, the natural gas also contains relatively lesser amounts of heavier hydrocarbons such as ethane, propane, butanes, pentanes and the like, as well as water, hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and other gases.
Most natural gas is handled in gaseous form. The most common means for transporting natural gas from the wellhead to gas processing plants and thence to the natural gas consumers is in high pressure gas transmission pipelines. In a number of circumstances, however, it has been found necessary and/or desirable to liquefy the natural gas either for transport or for use. In remote locations, for instance, there is often no pipeline infrastructure that would allow for convenient transportation of the natural gas to market. In such cases, the much lower specific volume of LNG relative to natural gas in the gaseous state can greatly reduce transportation costs by allowing delivery of the LNG using cargo ships and transport trucks.
Another circumstance that favors the liquefaction of natural gas is for its use as a motor vehicle fuel. In large metropolitan areas, there are fleets of buses, taxi cabs, and trucks that could be powered by LNG if there were an economic source of LNG available. Such LNG-fueled vehicles produce considerably less air pollution due to the clean-burning nature of natural gas when compared to similar vehicles powered by gasoline and diesel engines which combust higher molecular weight hydrocarbons. In addition, if the LNG is of high purity (i.e., with a methane purity of 95 mole percent or higher), the amount of carbon dioxide (a “greenhouse gas”) produced is considerably less due to the lower carbon:hydrogen ratio for methane compared to all other hydrocarbon fuels.
The present invention is generally concerned with the liquefaction of natural gas while producing as a co-product a liquid stream consisting primarily of hydrocarbons heavier than methane, such as natural gas liquids (NGL) composed of ethane, propane, butanes, and heavier hydrocarbon components, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) composed of propane, butanes, and heavier hydrocarbon components, or condensate composed of butanes and heavier hydrocarbon components. Producing the co-product liquid stream has two important benefits: the LNG produced has a high methane purity, and the co-product liquid is a valuable product that may be used for many other purposes. A typical analysis of a natural gas stream to be processed in accordance with this invention would be, in approximate mole percent, 84.2% methane, 7.9% ethane and other C2 components, 4.9% propane and other C3 components, 1.0% iso-butane, 1.1% normal butane, 0.8% pentanes plus, with the balance made up of nitrogen and carbon dioxide. Sulfur containing gases are also sometimes present.
There are a number of methods known for liquefying natural gas. For instance, see Finn, Adrian J., Grant L. Johnson, and Terry R. Tomlinson, “LNG Technology for Offshore and Mid-Scale Plants”, Proceedings of the Seventy-Ninth Annual Convention of the Gas Processors Association, pp. 429-450, Atlanta, Ga., Mar. 13-15, 2000 and Kikkawa, Yoshitsugi, Masaaki Ohishi, and Noriyoshi Nozawa, “Optimize the Power System of Baseload LNG Plant”, Proceedings of the Eightieth Annual Convention of the Gas Processors Association, San Antonio, Tex., Mar. 12-14, 2001 for surveys of a number of such processes. U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,445,917; 4,525,185; 4,545,795; 4,755,200; 5,291,736; 5,363,655; 5,365,740; 5,600,969; 5,615,561; 5,651,269; 5,755,114; 5,893,274; 6,014,869; 6,062,041; 6,119,479; 6,125,653; 6,250,105 B1; 6,269,655 B1; 6,272,882 B1; 6,308,531 B1; 6,324,867 B1; and 6,347,532 B1 also describe relevant processes. These methods generally include steps in which the natural gas is purified (by removing water and troublesome compounds such as carbon dioxide and sulfur compounds), cooled, condensed, and expanded. Cooling and condensation of the natural gas can be accomplished in many different manners. “Cascade refrigeration” employs heat exchange of the natural gas with several refrigerants having successively lower boiling points, such as propane, ethane, and methane. As an alternative, this heat exchange can be accomplished using a single refrigerant by evaporating the refrigerant at several different pressure levels. “Multi-component refrigeration” employs heat exchange of the natural gas with one or more refrigerant fluids composed of several refrigerant components in lieu of multiple single-component refrigerants. Expansion of the natural gas can be accomplished both isenthalpically (using Joule-Thomson expansion, for instance) and isentropically (using a work-expansion turbine, for instance).
Regardless of the method used to liquefy the natural gas stream, it is common to require removal of a significant fraction of the hydrocarbons heavier than methane before the methane-rich stream is liquefied. The reasons for this hydrocarbon removal step are numerous, including the need to control the heating value of the LNG stream, and the value of these heavier hydrocarbon components as products in their own right. Unfortunately, little attention has been focused heretofore on the efficiency of the hydrocarbon removal step.
In accordance with the present invention, it has been found that careful integration of the hydrocarbon removal step into the LNG liquefaction process can produce both LNG and a separate heavier hydrocarbon liquid product using significantly less energy than prior art processes. The present invention, although applicable at lower pressures, is particularly advantageous when processing feed gases in the range of 400 to 1500 psia [2,758 to 10,342 kPa(a)] or higher.
In the following explanation of the above figures, tables are provided summarizing flow rates calculated for representative process conditions. In the tables appearing herein, the values for flow rates (in moles per hour) have been rounded to the nearest whole number for convenience. The total stream rates shown in the tables include all non-hydrocarbon components and hence are generally larger than the sum of the stream flow rates for the hydrocarbon components. Temperatures indicated are approximate values rounded to the nearest degree. It should also be noted that the process design calculations performed for the purpose of comparing the processes depicted in the figures are based on the assumption of no heat leak from (or to) the surroundings to (or from) the process. The quality of commercially available insulating materials makes this a very reasonable assumption and one that is typically made by those skilled in the art.
For convenience, process parameters are reported in both the traditional British units and in the units of the International System of Units (SI). The molar flow rates given in the tables may be interpreted as either pound moles per hour or kilogram moles per hour. The energy consumptions reported as horsepower (HP) and/or thousand British Thermal Units per hour (MBTU/Hr) correspond to the stated molar flow rates in pound moles per hour. The energy consumptions reported as kilowatts (kW) correspond to the stated molar flow rates in kilogram moles per hour. The production rates reported as pounds per hour (Lb/Hr) correspond to the stated molar flow rates in pound moles per hour. The production rates reported as kilograms per hour (kg/Hr) correspond to the stated molar flow rates in kilogram moles per hour.